[address-policy-wg] Comments on proposal 2014-04 (Remove the IPv6 Requirement for receiving address space)

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Dave Wilson wrote:

> Hello James,
>
> On 22/01/2015 12:38, Kennedy, James wrote:
>> Wouldn't relaxing the text (as initially suggested) to require the LIR to have *any* form of IPv6, rather than removing it altogether, be more beneficial to general IPv6 adoption?
>> I fear having no IPv6 requirement at all may encourage the LIR to look into alternatives, such as NAT or the transfer market.
>
> Honestly, I don't think it would, no. We'd get some anecdotes like we
> already have, but nothing systematic.
>
> This proposal looks harsh because all a proposal can do is changing the
> policy text and, taken on its own, that appears to be a negative change.
> Might as well do something, right? But "something is better than
> nothing" is just not effective; in fact the thrust of my talk at RIPE68
> is that it's worse than useless.
>
> Here's one example for this particular case: the number of v6
> assignments is not currently a useful measure of interest in IPv6,
> because it's polluted by assignments to people who only applied because
> they had to do so to get a /22.
>
> As Gert said, the RIPE NCC is asked to send very clear signals about
> IPv6 to future applicants. That's something that doesn't belong in the
> policy text, but is absolutely pertinent to this proposal, and my
> feeling is that it'll be an overall improvement. More importantly, it's
> something that can be worked on over time so that we do end up with a
> systematic improvement.
>
> (So to be clear: I support the policy as is in last call.)

+1

Cheers,

Daniel

_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe           Tel:  08 - 688 11 81                   stolpe at resilans.se
Resilans AB             Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63            http://www.resilans.se/
Box 45 094							      556741-1193
104 30 Stockholm